Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Bullboard - Stock Discussion Forum Prodigy Gold Inc KXLAF

GREY:KXLAF - Post Discussion

Prodigy Gold Inc > 43-101 - Looking for other's thoughts...
View:
Post by dr_airtime on Apr 19, 2011 1:31pm

43-101 - Looking for other's thoughts...

Just did a 20 minute skim and here are my comments. I’m pretty green to analyzing resource estimates but I’ll throw out a couple comments below and hope any GEO’s , P.Eng.’s or more astute analysts out there can comment further:

 

Highlights of Magino 43-101


76k M of diamond surface diamond drilling, 60k M of underground diamond drilling used in resource estimate


0.1g/t threshold used as threshold for constraining mineralization. .35g/t cut-off.


Mineralized blocks further limited so that mineralization was not extrapolated more than 60m from drill hole and any blocks not achieving 80% of probability of achieving 0.1g/t threshold classified as barren.

Parameters for conceptual pit shell: 50 degree slope, $1.25/t mining cost, $1400/Oz Gold, 95% recovery, $7/t processing cost


All blocks below 300M, but within limit of conceptual pit shell classified as inferred. (check out slides 15 & 17 of  recently updated presentation New as of 4/15/2011) – looks like strip ratio increase to significantly if pit extended to 300M (From 400M above sea level down to 100M above sea level?)


Comments

1)     $1400 gold was used for conceptual pit vs. $1000 gold in PEA. Does this not seem standard practice?

2)     There were no plane-diagrams of drill holes, conceptual pit shell, blocks, and inferred vs. indicated blocks contained in the 43-101. Likewise, there was no discussion of parameters of pit shells so an investor could speculate is sub 300M inferred resources could be upgraded to indicated with in-fill drilling. I don’t know why they wouldn’t include this so less astute, non-geo investors could actually physically see the property. A picture says a thousand words so I’m wondering why no diagram. If you look on slides 15 and 17 of recently updated presentation on website they just released a couple basic diagrams. Looks like conceptual pit shell is 200M deep. Comments welcome.

3)     BLM Bharti Engineering was involved in property in 1996. Just wondering if anyone could comment is this was Stan Bharti’s (of Manhattan and Forbes group) company and if so, why they wouldn’t be involved in this property.

Andre (Long)

Comment by FastTrade on Apr 19, 2011 10:40pm
You Know where you can put those. Try these high points instead. Prodigy Receives Positive PEA For Magino: NPV of $351M and IRR of 49% Prodigy Gold Inc PDG 4/4/2011 11:27:55 AM VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, Apr 04, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX News Network) -- Prodigy Gold Incorporated (TSX VENTURE: PDG) is pleased to announce the results from a NI 43-101 compliant Preliminary Economic ...more  
The Market Update
{{currentVideo.title}} {{currentVideo.relativeTime}}
< Previous bulletin
Next bulletin >

At the Bell logo
A daily snapshot of everything
from market open to close.

{{currentVideo.companyName}}
{{currentVideo.intervieweeName}}{{currentVideo.intervieweeTitle}}
< Previous
Next >
Dealroom for high-potential pre-IPO opportunities